Over the months since Putin began Russia’s “Special Operation” in Ukraine we’ve attempted to explicate the major changes in the world order that appear to be headed our way.
It's late here as I read this and I'm tired but had to keep reading. Wow - you went on a philosophical deep dive. There's so much to unpack I'll read again with fresh eyes. Thank you for an excellent piece.
James Fallows was the pretentious crank who predicted the complete domination of the world by Japan . . just as Japan was falling apart. I've got his damn book here somewhere. I keep it to remind me that it doesn't matter how completely wrong you are about things, if you're ever anointed an "expert" by the U.S. mainstream media, that categorization seems to survive infinite errors on your part.
Yes, well, I remember those days, too. You'll notice that I intimated--which is true--that I didn't actually follow the link to that 1993 article, nor did I quote everything that Crooke did. I just used it for my own purposes. My assumption was that, as he was writing during the first Clinton term he was probably using his paradigm to bash the Reaganauts in favor of a more socialist paradigm. The reality is that cashing in on the outsourcing of the economy and the financialization of the economy was very much a bipartisan affair. On the other hand, I do think his idea of the three pillars has merit. Not that they were the Founders, but that both libertarians and liberals do reflect the interplay of those ideas in different ways.
"...the financialization of the economy was very much a bipartisan affair."
Or you could call it the rape of the economy...
Yeah, bipartisan in the sense that the neo-liberals saw the fantastic wealth-creating opportunity for themselves and the elites in globalization and the Chamber of Commerce/GOPe types cluelessly went along with it. Why not?
These guys knew what they were doing and they knew they were lining their pockets.
Re-reading the article is a fascinating time capsule (pun intended) exercise to better understand the hubris of American 'leadership' over the last few decades which has landed us where we are today.
As some proof that they knew they were lining their pockets, I would point you and your readers (again) to David McClintick's devastating take down of one of the Committee, Larry Summers, in his article How Harvard Lost Russia. Follow the money.
Most economists, it seems, believe strongly in their own superior intelligence and take themselves far too seriously. In his open letter of 22 July 2001 to Joseph Stiglitz, Kenneth Rogoff identified this problem: “One of my favourite stories from that era is a lunch with you and our former colleague, Carl Shapiro, at which the two of you started discussing whether Paul Volcker merited your vote for a tenured appointment at Princeton. At one point, you turned to me and said, “Ken, you used to work for Volcker at the Fed. Tell me, is he really smart?” I responded something to the effect of “Well, he was arguably the greatest Federal Reserve Chairman of the twentieth century” To which you replied, “But is he smart like us?” Economists have delusions of adequacy and a related assured self-confidence that they bring to any problem.
Rogoff went on note that in one of Stiglitz’s books – “Globalisation and its Discontents“: “… I failed to detect a single instance where you, Joe Stiglitz, admit to having been even slightly wrong about a major real world problem. When the U.S. economy booms in the 1990s, you take some credit. But when anything goes wrong, it is because lesser mortals like Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan or then-Treasury Secretary Rubin did not listen to your advice.” Rogoff concluded that Stiglitz was “… a towering genius. Like your fellow Nobel Prize winner, John Nash, you have a “beautiful mind.” As a policymaker, however, you were just a bit less impressive.”
Writing in his preface to Benjamin Graham’s “Intelligent Investor”, Warren Buffet observed that: “…not only does a sky-high IQ not guarantee success but it could also pose a danger…I therefore urge the relevant regulatory bodies of the United Studies and Canada to incorporate an IQ test into their securities licensing exams. … nobody would be allowed to work in the financial markets in any capacity with a score of 115 or higher. Finance is too important to be left to smart people.” One could add economics should definitely never be left to economists.
Excellent piece. It's been clear to me since my early professional career in manufacturing, that a vibrant a 'service economy' outside of the context of a strong manufacturing economy is an illusion. After List, building an economy on lending money to fruit buyers, selling fruit, drying fruit, packaging fruit, transporting fruit--none of this is possible without planting, nurturing, caring for the tree.
In a later futures market trading career, I was astonished by the incredible array of financial instruments that can be traded--even for someone without a Goldman Sachs-sized trading book. Almost none of what I did for those twelve years had anything to do with the tangible. An immense amount of time, effort, and money flows through the upper reaches of our economy with very little of it adding real value. Is it any surprise that we are hollowed out, financially and spiritually?
They really did sell us a bill of goods -- that factory work is terrible, is dehumanizing, is to be avoided at all costs. That everyone should go to college and get "knowledge" and be a "knowledge worker".
I learned somewhere I can't recall where it was, new wealth is only created from either agriculture (farming, animal husbandry, forestry), or mining (minerals, coal, oil & gas), or manufacturing. All other forms of economic activity just allow for the redistribution of existing wealth. Excessive financialization brought us to where we are now, broken and broke in every way.
I see a connection between those that believe in our own Constitution as well as International Law in opposition to those who believe in a "living-breathing constitution" and the "rules-based order". The latter is a perversion of the former.
I'm a fairly old guy with a decent education who has traveled a fair bit. And yet it has taken me until my late 60's to figure out that we are not the good guys. I think we were in 1940. Not anymore.
Exactly how I feel. I thought we were the good guys and now I know we are not. In a way that realization is liberating. We no longer need to defend something that is not worth defending. Don't get me wrong. I will always defend Americans, just not the corruption that our government has become.
I would generally count myself in agreement with both of you...with the following proviso about 1940. I've been reading quite a bit of revisionist history about the predicates for WWI (which inevitably led to WWII) and WWII. Its not clear to me that our entry into these wars was quite as altruistic as our history books would have us believe. But I'm still learning...
I would have to agree with you regarding the 1940 comment as well. I'd be interested in the sources you are reading. I've been reading and listening to Matt Ehret at his Substack as well as his Canadian Patriot website the last few weeks (he seems to be everywhere recently) and he has the history of the new world order proponents going much further back. Through him I learned about how Prescott Bush, grandfather of W, was convicted of trading with the enemy. He was helping to fund the Hitler Regime even after the US entered WWII. Seems that bit of history has been swept under the rug for the most part. He actually became a US Senator after that. How does that happen??
Ehret seems to focus on the central bankers as a major source of this elitist bs. I'm learning, but still have a lot to learn.
Best i can figure, we stopped being the good guys-- and by that i can only say, a nation with strong Judeo Christian roots that believed in minding its own domestic affairs and robust public debate in the context of a weak federal government-- sometime in the 1850s. By the time Lincoln came along and the attitude that "Union" meant forced association or subjugation by death and destruction, we weren't good. Post civil war, the oligarchs started taking over. By WWI the rot was well advanced.
Let me revise and extend my 1940 comment. It's almost certainly true that US leadership--like probably all powerful people everywhere--has always been corrupt. However, I think that in the 1940's the American people were "good guys." Communities were strong, religious worship was strong, the work ethic was strong, institutions were smaller and likely less corrupt. Yes, there have always been problems--but it is hard to compare and contrast today's American favorably against 80 years ago. We've become a scary clown show.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Why Happiness? Why not say, Life, Liberty, and Property?
Of the three "pillars", you might want to investigate Rousseau, who was not a nice guy, and whose malign influence is felt even today in mothers dragging their children to Drag Queen Story Hours, lest even one child in America grow up to not have his autogynephilia affirmed and celebrated from birth. "If it saves one life..."
Rousseau's famous dictum is that "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Our Founders were Deists who went with the conceit that a nation can function without an established religion.
It's late here as I read this and I'm tired but had to keep reading. Wow - you went on a philosophical deep dive. There's so much to unpack I'll read again with fresh eyes. Thank you for an excellent piece.
James Fallows was the pretentious crank who predicted the complete domination of the world by Japan . . just as Japan was falling apart. I've got his damn book here somewhere. I keep it to remind me that it doesn't matter how completely wrong you are about things, if you're ever anointed an "expert" by the U.S. mainstream media, that categorization seems to survive infinite errors on your part.
Yes, well, I remember those days, too. You'll notice that I intimated--which is true--that I didn't actually follow the link to that 1993 article, nor did I quote everything that Crooke did. I just used it for my own purposes. My assumption was that, as he was writing during the first Clinton term he was probably using his paradigm to bash the Reaganauts in favor of a more socialist paradigm. The reality is that cashing in on the outsourcing of the economy and the financialization of the economy was very much a bipartisan affair. On the other hand, I do think his idea of the three pillars has merit. Not that they were the Founders, but that both libertarians and liberals do reflect the interplay of those ideas in different ways.
@Mark
"...the financialization of the economy was very much a bipartisan affair."
Or you could call it the rape of the economy...
Yeah, bipartisan in the sense that the neo-liberals saw the fantastic wealth-creating opportunity for themselves and the elites in globalization and the Chamber of Commerce/GOPe types cluelessly went along with it. Why not?
Do you remember The Committee to Save the World?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2054093,00.html
These guys knew what they were doing and they knew they were lining their pockets.
Re-reading the article is a fascinating time capsule (pun intended) exercise to better understand the hubris of American 'leadership' over the last few decades which has landed us where we are today.
As some proof that they knew they were lining their pockets, I would point you and your readers (again) to David McClintick's devastating take down of one of the Committee, Larry Summers, in his article How Harvard Lost Russia. Follow the money.
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b150npp3q49x7w/how-harvard-lost-russia
If you 'enjoy' this article and want more, there's McClintick's follow up, How Summers Lost Harvard.
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b150ns6bplx7f1/how-summers-lost-harvard
Reminds me a bit of one of my favorite econ blog posts:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/06/satyajit-das-even-more-crunch-porn-and-crash-lit.html
Most economists, it seems, believe strongly in their own superior intelligence and take themselves far too seriously. In his open letter of 22 July 2001 to Joseph Stiglitz, Kenneth Rogoff identified this problem: “One of my favourite stories from that era is a lunch with you and our former colleague, Carl Shapiro, at which the two of you started discussing whether Paul Volcker merited your vote for a tenured appointment at Princeton. At one point, you turned to me and said, “Ken, you used to work for Volcker at the Fed. Tell me, is he really smart?” I responded something to the effect of “Well, he was arguably the greatest Federal Reserve Chairman of the twentieth century” To which you replied, “But is he smart like us?” Economists have delusions of adequacy and a related assured self-confidence that they bring to any problem.
Rogoff went on note that in one of Stiglitz’s books – “Globalisation and its Discontents“: “… I failed to detect a single instance where you, Joe Stiglitz, admit to having been even slightly wrong about a major real world problem. When the U.S. economy booms in the 1990s, you take some credit. But when anything goes wrong, it is because lesser mortals like Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan or then-Treasury Secretary Rubin did not listen to your advice.” Rogoff concluded that Stiglitz was “… a towering genius. Like your fellow Nobel Prize winner, John Nash, you have a “beautiful mind.” As a policymaker, however, you were just a bit less impressive.”
Writing in his preface to Benjamin Graham’s “Intelligent Investor”, Warren Buffet observed that: “…not only does a sky-high IQ not guarantee success but it could also pose a danger…I therefore urge the relevant regulatory bodies of the United Studies and Canada to incorporate an IQ test into their securities licensing exams. … nobody would be allowed to work in the financial markets in any capacity with a score of 115 or higher. Finance is too important to be left to smart people.” One could add economics should definitely never be left to economists.
One of your nest yet, Mark.
*best
https://twitter.com/tleehumphrey/status/1536377134192545792?cxt=HHwWgMCiyaG3p9IqAAAA
Sounds more like the kid who feigns a tummy ache so they don't have to go to school and take a test they aren't ready for...
But it would have been so much worse if he hadn't been vaxxed!!
Its officiel . . . Justin Castreau is a complete moron!
Excellent piece. It's been clear to me since my early professional career in manufacturing, that a vibrant a 'service economy' outside of the context of a strong manufacturing economy is an illusion. After List, building an economy on lending money to fruit buyers, selling fruit, drying fruit, packaging fruit, transporting fruit--none of this is possible without planting, nurturing, caring for the tree.
In a later futures market trading career, I was astonished by the incredible array of financial instruments that can be traded--even for someone without a Goldman Sachs-sized trading book. Almost none of what I did for those twelve years had anything to do with the tangible. An immense amount of time, effort, and money flows through the upper reaches of our economy with very little of it adding real value. Is it any surprise that we are hollowed out, financially and spiritually?
They really did sell us a bill of goods -- that factory work is terrible, is dehumanizing, is to be avoided at all costs. That everyone should go to college and get "knowledge" and be a "knowledge worker".
I learned somewhere I can't recall where it was, new wealth is only created from either agriculture (farming, animal husbandry, forestry), or mining (minerals, coal, oil & gas), or manufacturing. All other forms of economic activity just allow for the redistribution of existing wealth. Excessive financialization brought us to where we are now, broken and broke in every way.
Thanks for the input.
I see a connection between those that believe in our own Constitution as well as International Law in opposition to those who believe in a "living-breathing constitution" and the "rules-based order". The latter is a perversion of the former.
There are several different foundations of Western Economic success that are being destroyed.
1. Security of property
2. One system of justice
3. Lack of corruption
4. Education
5. Free trade, not one government creates losers and monopolies.
6. Rule of law
7. Not strangling businesses with excessive regulation and taxes
8. Law and order
9. Nuclear family - an amazingly efficient economic unit.
I’m amazed at how cheaply China has bought our politicians.
Our politicians, our scientists, our university presidents, our CEOS, our Hollywood producers, our King LeBrons...
I'm a fairly old guy with a decent education who has traveled a fair bit. And yet it has taken me until my late 60's to figure out that we are not the good guys. I think we were in 1940. Not anymore.
Exactly how I feel. I thought we were the good guys and now I know we are not. In a way that realization is liberating. We no longer need to defend something that is not worth defending. Don't get me wrong. I will always defend Americans, just not the corruption that our government has become.
@Lawrence
@Bob
I would generally count myself in agreement with both of you...with the following proviso about 1940. I've been reading quite a bit of revisionist history about the predicates for WWI (which inevitably led to WWII) and WWII. Its not clear to me that our entry into these wars was quite as altruistic as our history books would have us believe. But I'm still learning...
I would have to agree with you regarding the 1940 comment as well. I'd be interested in the sources you are reading. I've been reading and listening to Matt Ehret at his Substack as well as his Canadian Patriot website the last few weeks (he seems to be everywhere recently) and he has the history of the new world order proponents going much further back. Through him I learned about how Prescott Bush, grandfather of W, was convicted of trading with the enemy. He was helping to fund the Hitler Regime even after the US entered WWII. Seems that bit of history has been swept under the rug for the most part. He actually became a US Senator after that. How does that happen??
Ehret seems to focus on the central bankers as a major source of this elitist bs. I'm learning, but still have a lot to learn.
@all
Yes, dittos all around.
Best i can figure, we stopped being the good guys-- and by that i can only say, a nation with strong Judeo Christian roots that believed in minding its own domestic affairs and robust public debate in the context of a weak federal government-- sometime in the 1850s. By the time Lincoln came along and the attitude that "Union" meant forced association or subjugation by death and destruction, we weren't good. Post civil war, the oligarchs started taking over. By WWI the rot was well advanced.
Let me revise and extend my 1940 comment. It's almost certainly true that US leadership--like probably all powerful people everywhere--has always been corrupt. However, I think that in the 1940's the American people were "good guys." Communities were strong, religious worship was strong, the work ethic was strong, institutions were smaller and likely less corrupt. Yes, there have always been problems--but it is hard to compare and contrast today's American favorably against 80 years ago. We've become a scary clown show.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
Welcome to the club!
:-(
You must find multiple choice tests terribly frustrating.
I will leave you with one thought:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Why Happiness? Why not say, Life, Liberty, and Property?
Of the three "pillars", you might want to investigate Rousseau, who was not a nice guy, and whose malign influence is felt even today in mothers dragging their children to Drag Queen Story Hours, lest even one child in America grow up to not have his autogynephilia affirmed and celebrated from birth. "If it saves one life..."
Rousseau's famous dictum is that "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Our Founders were Deists who went with the conceit that a nation can function without an established religion.